Mis-sold PPI`s

[kloofnek]

Everytime I see an ad.about mis-sold PPI`s,I wonder how this can happen,surely one would know if one has agreed to take one out...so how can they possibly be "mis-sold"??????

[Mojo-Jo-Jo]

People were told they must have them or void their financial contract.
This was not true.

[DTCwordfan]

Because they were selling something else behind our backs.

[VHG]

If you took out a loan and were told it was say £150 a month to pay it back, what they did not tell you was that they had included PPI in the "cost" of the loan without telling you.

It may be that your repayment COULD have been say £125 a month, but they stuck the PPI cost on top without telling you that is what they were doing.

Hence mis-sold.

[factor-fiction]

I can see your point of view, and I share it in some respects. In many cases people were just careless or knew that there credit record was such that they accepted whatever rate, including PPI charge, a lender would give. In some cases people did want PPI but because it turned out the circumstances they wanted to be covered for never arose (Sickness, redundancy etc) they may now be claiming it back (whereas they would I am sure have taken the benefit if something like illness/had occured).

But there was misselling in the sense that advisers sold policies that were not suitable- eg with redundancy benefits that couldn't apply because the person was self-employed. I think in some cases it wasn't explained either and people didn't realise they'd be charged it until after the payments came out of their account. Okay, you could argue they should have read the small print, but let's face it, many of us don't. It is also argued some were wrongly told they had to have it (although I'm not sure why they didn't shop around).

[kloofnek]

Thank you all,now I understand...but how wrong of these companies to just add it on without consulting one first...hope everyone that this has happen, get their refund.

[factor-fiction]

I am sure that in most cases people were told in a fashion but it wasn't always made absolutely clear in advance or people were under the impression it was compulsory. I'm lucky enough never to have bought any so I'm not sure exactly how it happens and why people some people now say they didn't even know they had it, but at the end of the day the FSA or whoever has said it was missselling. Hopefully it will ensure the sale of financial products is more transparent.

[hc4361]

People weren't told that the product was no good to them if they were retired, unemployed or otherwise not working for a wage; or self employed.
They would not have been able to claim because PPI is meant to cover your payments if you are on sick leave or made redundant.

[factor-fiction]

I agree with that hc4361 but I have never been sure why redress is so often available for financial products but not for other things- e.g. (to take a random example) if you bought solar panels and weren't told it could reduce the price of your house, or you bought a computer and weren't warned the operating system would become obsolete in a year

[hc4361]

Because in the mis-selling the customers were told they could not have the product unless they had the PPI, which was plainly wrong; or were not told that PPI was automatically included.

[factor-fiction]

Thanks hc4361- yes I get that (although I was lucky enough never to be forced to take out a loan with PPI- I'd have gone elsewhere). I'm just sayng mis-selling is a much wider problem but financial services seems to get all the focus.
Why aren't claims companies saying people were mis-sold NI contributions, for example

[kloofnek]

I think it is disgusting how these banks have been taking advantage of people.

[lcg]

because we were told we had no choice to have one if we wanted a loan.....and the terms and conditions were never made clear before signing - my hubby has a health condition which would have rendered it invalid if we had claimed. simples, really.